Thoughts on strength of reincarnation evidence?

Strong enough that Carl Sagan, generally a debunker of anomalous phenomena, stated that the evidence behind re-incarnation was compelling, and ought to be investigated heavily.  And he's right.  If you have an open mind, I think it is essentially impossible to view the data and not come away impressed and astounded.

Strong enough that Carl Sagan, generally a debunker of anomalous phenomena, stated that the evidence behind re-incarnation was compelling, and ought to be investigated heavily.

I hadn't heard that before, and went in search of the quotation. It comes from Sagan's 1995 book "The Demon-Haunted World," but the sceptical caveats tend to get whittled away when it's quoted in the parapsychological literature. Sagan did say that claims about microPK with random number generators, Ganzfield psi and reincarnation deserved serious study, but added that he didn't think they were likely to be valid. Regarding the evidence, he said the claims had "at least some, although still dubious, experimental support."
https://www.reddit.com/r/carlsagan/comme...arl_sagan/

I hadn't heard that before, and went in search of the quotation. It comes from Sagan's 1995 book "The Demon-Haunted World," but the sceptical caveats tend to get whittled away when it's quoted in the parapsychological literature. Sagan did say that claims about microPK with random number generators, Ganzfield psi and reincarnation deserved serious study, but added that he didn't think they were likely to be valid. Regarding the evidence, he said the claims had "at least some, although still dubious, experimental support."
https://www.reddit.com/r/carlsagan/comme...arl_sagan/

I remember reading a Sagan book way back in the 1970's - I'm pretty sure it was "The Dragons of Eden" however. I don't remember the details but do remember my impressions of Sagan after reading the book. Like many around that time, I had Sagan on a pedestal after being enthralled by his Cosmos TV series which was, to be sure, brilliant popular science. Then, after reading his book, he took a dive from that pedestal because the whole tone was dogmatic. One quote from that book I'm reminded of demonstrates such a dogmatic approach:

“[The brain’s] workings — what we sometimes call mind — are a consequence of its anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.”

So, far from being open-minded, Sagan was a champion of the materialists and an atheist icon. Yet he denied being either dogmatic or an atheist, being careful to leave just a tiny morsel of hope for his non-atheist fans, I suspect.

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?” [It’s a bit puzzling that Sagan specifies the Abrahamic faiths in his definition of an atheist.]

To Stephen Jay Gould, Dec. 18, 1989, after a newspaper editorial referred to Sagan and Gould as “dogmatic” on the question of whether there is a God:

“Do you understand how – assuming either of us ever did say ‘The universe can be explained without postulating God’ – this could be understood as dogmatic? I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence. That attitude, it seems to me, is undogmatic.”

I too find it interesting that, like many atheists, he specifies God as being the "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" as though no other concept is worth discussing.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the notorious declaration of materialist dogma by Richard Lewontin was written in a book review of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World".

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. 

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01...of-demons/

I remember reading a Sagan book way back in the 1970's - I'm pretty sure it was "The Dragons of Eden" however. I don't remember the details but do remember my impressions of Sagan after reading the book. Like many around that time, I had Sagan on a pedestal after being enthralled by his Cosmos TV series which was, to be sure, brilliant popular science. Then, after reading his book, he took a dive from that pedestal because the whole tone was dogmatic. One quote from that book I'm reminded of demonstrates such a dogmatic approach:


So, far from being open-minded, Sagan was a champion of the materialists and an atheist icon. Yet he denied being either dogmatic or an atheist, being careful to leave just a tiny morsel of hope for his non-atheist fans, I suspect.


I too find it interesting that, like many atheists, he specifies God as being the "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" as though no other concept is worth discussing.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the notorious declaration of materialist dogma by Richard Lewontin was written in a book review of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World".



https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01...of-demons/

Maybe to recognise the problem with the g-word, you should from now on use the word “allah” instead? Or maybe just “nature”?

Maybe to recognise the problem with the g-word, you should from now on use the word “allah” instead? Or maybe just “nature”?

Allah is merely the Islamic word for the same Abrahamic God, isn't it? "Nature", as you well know, has materialistic connotations, highlighted by the use of "natural" vs "supernatural". 

Nevertheless, that wasn't the point. The point was that many atheists seem determined, like so many other fundamentalists, to recognise only the Abrahamic God/Allah as the only possible concept of a deity. I guess that version is an easy target as so much of the Bible/Quran is open to criticism and/or ridicule. Again, I think we have had this discussion before but I thought, as Sagan had been brought up, it was worth a mention.

I remember reading a Sagan book way back in the 1970's - I'm pretty sure it was "The Dragons of Eden" however. I don't remember the details but do remember my impressions of Sagan after reading the book. Like many around that time, I had Sagan on a pedestal after being enthralled by his Cosmos TV series which was, to be sure, brilliant popular science. Then, after reading his book, he took a dive from that pedestal because the whole tone was dogmatic. One quote from that book I'm reminded of demonstrates such a dogmatic approach:


So, far from being open-minded, Sagan was a champion of the materialists and an atheist icon. Yet he denied being either dogmatic or an atheist, being careful to leave just a tiny morsel of hope for his non-atheist fans, I suspect.


I too find it interesting that, like many atheists, he specifies God as being the "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" as though no other concept is worth discussing.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the notorious declaration of materialist dogma by Richard Lewontin was written in a book review of Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World".



https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01...of-demons/

Karmy asks why? It should be obvious to anyone familiar with USA religious history that this country was and still is predominately a christian nation. That's why he referred to God. Karmy you should take all the energy you use to whine about materialists and put it to doing research, you just might help your cause.

Karmy asks why? It should be obvious to anyone familiar with USA religious history that this country was and still is predominately a christian nation. That's why he referred to God. Karmy you should take all the energy you use to whine about materialists and put it to doing research, you just might help your cause.

Given that many activist atheists hold up study, research, and adherence to facts as virtues, the fact that they frequently conflate any notion of religion with the Abrahamic faiths, and Christianity as being monolithic in thought, is a fair criticism, regardless of which country they come from. If they want to criticize a particular strand of religiosity found in the USA, they should be specific.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with Sagan's comments. He's being honest; his own view is strong skepticism and his opinion of psi research isn't high, but he concedes certain areas as being worthy of further investigation.

Jacque Vallee stated that he once told Carl Sagan, (paraphrasing)"If I can put together 10 REALLY solid UFO encounter cases, with lots of solid testimonial and even physical evidence which seem almost irrefutable to me, will you take a look at them."  Sagan agreed.  Vallee put the time in and constructed these cases and then told Sagan he had the cases ready.  Sagan then responded that "unfortunately he didnt have the time to look at them."  This is a general trend I notice with the skeptical movement in general.  A refusal to view the best and hardest to explain data (they generally attack the data which they feel they can refute), and once they feel theyve refuted the most refutable piece of evidence, they rest in their "victory."  Occasionally they will take a shot at the difficult data, and when they do they come up with the most ridiculous explanations, like Hyneks infamous "swamp gas" or (in another case) that the pilots of the Japanese airliner who saw orbs of light flying around their airplane for 30 minutes (which were also picked up on radar) where actually just looking at neptune and Uranus.  

In the NDE arena, skeptics will tackle the issue by calling them hallucinations.  But the hallucination theory couldnt explain the cases where the blind saw for the first time, the deaf heard for the first time, it couldnt explain veridical experiences, couldnt explain the shared death experience etc etc on and on.  They are then forced to apply the hallucination theory to the cases where it MAY be applicable, and either totally ignore the other cases which it couldnt apply to, or maintain that these people are lying.  But, again, when they do attempt an explanation, it comes off as downright laughable. Like explaining the shared death experience as being "a product of grief."  As if that is sufficient or even begins to make any sense whatsoever.  In cases like these, they would be better off just saying "I don't know."  That would at least be a respectable response.

The reincarnation data treatment by skeptics is really no different.  The only explanation is, "oh yea right come on, these people got this information from somewhere else or some other source."  This is the explanation which is used, even when it isn't even a remotely sufficient explanation in a great number of these cases.  But it doesn't matter to them.  Their explanations MUST be the MOST likely explanation, because of course we already know, a-priori, that re-incarnation or anything which challenges the materialistic paradigm HAS to be less likely than than goofy explanations because the alternative is impossible.

I can sympathize with them when they say that, "we have no proof."  And of course that is true.  But let's not pretend that their ridiculous criticisms and "debunking" works or is anywhere near logical much of the time. Again, if they stopped at, "we cant be sure due to lack of proof", I would be perfectly happy with that.

Jacque Vallee: 
I can sympathize with them when they say that, "we have no proof."  And of course that is true.  But let's not pretend that their ridiculous criticisms and "debunking" works or is anywhere near logical much of the time. Again, if they stopped at, "we cant be sure due to lack of proof", I would be perfectly happy with that.

Jacque's advice is good. Too bad most immaterialists don't heed it. Don't you agree Wormwood?

Jacque's advice is good. Too bad most immaterialists don't heed it. Don't you agree Wormwood?

Yea I can agree with that.  People should not seem certain when they cannot be.